Art meets Religion: Naked Morality

The human figure has often been regarded as the highest form of subject matter in the arts, above landscapes, above the still life.  Nudity in regards to the human figure in Art has been a hot button issue since the Middle Ages (or before, if you really want to argue that).  The Ancient Grecian/Roman tradition states that the nude human form is something to be celebrated.  In the middle ages, a nude was something shameful.  The nude in Art had its rebirth in the Renaissance, again in celebratory fashion.  Ever since, the argument about where the line between classical nudity and pornography has raged on.

This question of morality of the nude in Art hit home for me last year in an upper level Drawing course on figure rendering.  This class was actually my first introduction to the private male anatomy that was not immediately blocked from my memory.  It was here that I learned the professional detachment from and sheer aestheticism of the human figure, male or female.  At this point, I figure that if the purpose of the nude is Art, then there is no perversion on the part of the artist.  There were no emotions, no reactions, none of the discomfort or sense of shame that came from tracing the outline of the naked human form. 

If my experience had ended there, on the side of the artist, I would have learned only one side, but I would have been happy, if yet blissfully unaware.  Staying in the art program at any number of universities provides one with the most interesting of opportunities.  For me, I was asked by a fellow art major to pose nude for the sake of his senior exhibition.  This decision requires much deliberation and more soul searching that I would have ever guessed.  I would like to take you through the short list, whirlwind tour of the thought process behind someone's decision of whether or not to pose as a nude model for the sake of art.

First, there are professional concerns, things like: this could end up in a gallery or professional portfolio.  The model has to, in a sense, give up the rights to their image (literally in this personal case as the medium is photography).  Am I comfortable with my peers seeing me naked, on a wall in a gallery?  What would I represent by being there?  What is my body going to be used to say?  Will it be something I can agree with?  All of these questions run through my head as an artist, and oddly enough, are answered by the character of the eyes behind the camera.

My friend, the artist, whom we will call Lloyd, is an artist in the truest sense of the word.  I am very familiar with his work, and have seen how he has treated nude models in the past.  He takes care not to objectify women, which is a plus for me, as a woman.  Because of his professional detachment, I feel oddly at ease about my concerns with his "political" agenda.

There are more middling concerns, about the actual event of the modeling session.  Does he just want to see me naked?  Will he get some kind of sexual thrill out of this?  Will I?  Is that experience okay for the sake of Art?

My concerns on this note were honestly somewhat unwarranted.  Lloyd is very open and out about his homosexuality, which eased my concerns about his possibly getting a sexual thrill out of this.  Also, my being asexual and not attracted to him at all helps me to not have to worry about this situation possibly becoming sexually charged.

Finally, there are immense personal concerns.  Am I comfortable enough with my body to allow someone else to see it?  Take pictures of it?  Don't I have too much fat?  I don't fit what modern America calls "attractive." 

These concerns are the ones that cannot be answered as easily as the rest, because, by nature, they can only be answered by the one asking them.  I have body issues.  You'd be hard pressed to find any female in America who doesn't.  I have stretch marks from weight fluctuation.  I am short and have breasts that are uncomfortably large for my small frame.  Believe me, I am not boasting.  I find nothing about me to be visual appealing or striking, but of course I'm biased.  So, to get past this last hurdle, I did what the cautious part of me looses sleep over.  In my mind, duty and responsibility always win out over comfort, so I said "yes."  I agreed to model nude for my friends senior exhibit, because when am I ever going to get to do it again?

So, here I am, waiting for the call about "are you free to come to the lighting studio?"  I've already battled second thoughts, but so far, the "ayes" still have it. 

Stay tuned for the follow up post to find out how this story ends.

A Picture that is Irritating

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=52350

Go look at this picture.  Right now.  You have nothing better to do, just go.  Come back to me once you've taken a good hard look at it.  I'm not going anywhere; I'll be here when you get back.  Go on.

Did you see it?  I mean really see it?  Scary isn't it (and I don't mean the kid in the mask)?

First, let me just say that this picture does call out those luke-warm Christians  who have no cause to champion.  All Christians have been called by God, and while most have not been caused to lead the war on abortion rights, some have, and I appreciate them.  I do not believe that I personally am called to combat abortion rights.

Abortion does not continue because Christians don't care, it continues because humans have this wonderful thing called "free will."  This idea of "free will" is what allows us to love and act in compassion, but it also allows us to do other things, like stealing and indulging in chocolate.  It allows us to do things we want, like enjoying the beauty of an Appalachian sunrise or voting in an upcoming election.  Free will also allows people to get abortions, and carry signs condemning their fellow Christians for not throwing the country into chaos over what some women do with their lives.  Let's take a look into the Bible real quick.  The Bible is filled with prostitutes.  Prostitutes who were redeemed, FORGIVEN! even.  Jesus himself forgave a prostitute who would have been stoned otherwise.

You know, I think our emotions end up misplaced very easily.  We can do nothing after someone has an abortion.  Nothing we can do is going to bring that child back to life.  So what good does it do to condemn our brothers and sisters for something they have no control over?  Instead of holding up signs like these, how about we start holding ones that say: "Christians, Remember to love your neighbors!" or "Nothing can separate us from the love of God."?

This whole idea of people holding signs talking about how much "God hates YOU!" really pisses me off.  I know that there probably is a place for it, but does it seriously work?  Go look at Westboro Baptist Church, the "Christians" who protest soldiers' funerals, saying that they died to protect profanity and corruption.  How can people who have experienced the LOVE of CHRIST, condemn the world outright?  True we are called out of the law of the world, but we stay in the world to be the light.  Who in their right mind will run towards the light if all it does is condemn them.  These people tell the world that there is no loving God, there is no forgiveness, there is no abundant life, only judgment and death and condemnation.  Oh yes, that's what Christianity is ALL ABOUT!  (Please note the sarcasm.)

So, that's why these people piss me off.  Yes, they challenge us to examine our lives and consider our own apathy, which is good, but we are told to reproach our brothers in love, not judgment.

CWO to sent up Propoganda for the Pope

London, September 2010, Pope Benedict will share the streets with fifteen of London's famous red buses carrying signs that simply say "Pope Benedict - Ordain Women Now."  The CWO, or Catholic Women's Ordination, has paid a healthy sum to the city to use the buses as advertising space, and also plans to rally during one of the Pope's scheduled speeches. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100826/od_nm/us_britain_pope

So, what does this mean, for those Christians here in America?  Well, to Catholics worldwide, should the CWO succeed in their endeavor, female priests will finally become a reality.  Should the Pope decline to head the CWO'c demands, the possibility of further driving a wedge into the Catholic community would become imminent.  So here stands Catholicism, on the verge of change, no matter what the Pope decides. 

Now, I'm not Catholic, so at first, I have to ask myself: "What do I care?"  Well, not being Catholic doesn't mean that what happens with the Pope doesn't affect me at all.  Let's take a short trip down history lane.  Judaism gave way to Christianity, which evolved into Catholicism, which split and helped give rise to Protestantism, and subsequently, all the non-Catholic Christian denominations.  Ergo, just like what affects the Jewish nation affects us, what happens to Catholicism affects us. 

If the Pope allows the ordination of female priests, it will become easier for other denominations to allow women into positions of authority.  Currently, very few Christian denominations allow women into high positions, but that could change.

In all honest, I don't see the Pope ordaining women.  I think it's sad that he most likely won't, but I feel that he will most likely hold to tradition.  It seems like the Catholic thing to do.  (Please don't think I am necessarily stereotyping all Catholics; I am just basing that statement on the knowledge that Catholicism leans towards conservatism and traditionalism.)  So, odds are, in my opinion, the rift over sexism in the church will simply linger on. 

What do you think?

Biblical Sexualities: part 1

So, I have a friend who likes to get on a soap-box about how the Bible condemns homosexuality. Now, I have read the Bible cover to cover (except for about half of psalms and proverbs). There were some interesting finds, familiar stories and long rambling lists. Here though, I would like to discuss the views of the Biblical stance on the spectrum of sexualities as we understand it today. Let's start with the easy one:

Heterosexuality

Genesis 2:24 and Mark 10:7 state that "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." This passage is one of the most quoted in reference to the Bible's PRO stance on heterosexuality. The "reason" in question is found in the previous verse in Genesis: "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.'" Now, some people will also tell you that even though this particular woman was Eve, she was not Adam's first wife. Many cultures believe that Adam's first wife was a woman named Lilith, who was created at the same time as man, and not after from his rib. The legends surrounding Lilith tell of how she refused to submit to Adam and went as far to lie with Archangel Samael. One question that this raises is "Why did Adam have to have a new wife?" Aside from the fact that his first wife was a cheating whore, she was also the first feminist. So, does the Bible condemn feminists, whores, or women? Well, it's accepted that women are not condemned. The Bible does talk about promiscuous women and how they are foolish, sinful, and should be stoned to death, however, God commanded one of his servants, Hosea, to marry a whore, ergo it's possible that they can be redeemed. Several times throughout the Bible though, author's discuss women being subordinate to men, so who knows on the feminism note?

Anyway, we're discussing heterosexuality, not feminism. Many people never make it to the point of the Bible advocating heterosexuality, only the point of it condemning homosexuality. Paul, a disciple of Christ, tells the church in Corinth that "It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command." (1 Corinthians 7:1-6) Now we're getting somewhere. Here, Paul advocates celibacy, which will be discussed in a later section of this discussion. The interesting thing though is that Paul promotes marriage only because of immorality. Why would he do this? Was the sexual immorality he combating homosexuality, as many people believe, or was is promiscuity? Honestly, which seems more likely in this context?

Do I really have to answer for you? Really? Okay, *sigh* it's promiscuity, prostitution, frequent unprotected sexual activities among multiple individuals which often results in spreading STDs, STIs, children that parents can't afford, and lots of mental trauma.

So, while Paul does set up a heterosexual model, he does so out of concession not only for health reasons, but also for the primary logical reason, that heterosexuality is the only childbearing model of sexuality that we have.

And there we go. It doesn't sound as great as it did in my head, but it'll serve for now. Open comments time!